[cddotdotslash]

While this is great for those keeping track of the stats, I doubt it will have much effect on the average consumer. Almost everyone I know uses Chrome; that includes family members, co-workers, tech-minded and non-tech-minded people alike. For them, it's been IE vs Chrome for awhile and telling them "Firefox is a tad bit faster" isn't enough to make them switch again. Unfortunately, I think Firefox lost too many people during its sluggish phase awhile back and it's going to be tough getting them back.

Also, as much as I keep hearing "Google is evil" in the tech echo chamber, again, the average consumer doesn't care. Even I know Google's policies and still choose to use Chrome purely because it's more convenient.

[wodenokoto]

That is not the point of the post. The point is that Mozilla for a long time have thought these benchmarks to be sidetracking and useless for normal users, and now that they are beating the competitions they can rightly say "we need to focus on something else" without sounding like sore losers.

Mozilla sees big potential in ASM-js and if the competition starts working on getting that optimized a whole new type of web application will be broadly feasible, which is something Mozilla cares much more about.

[e12e]

> Even I know Google's policies and still choose to use Chrome purely because it's more convenient.

What do you find is more convenient with Chrome over Firefox?

I don't (yet) use all of the sync features in Firefox, but just having a unified history on Android and desktop is quite convenient, as is syncing saved passwords -- and knowing both how data is handled, and that I can set up a personal sync-server if I want to (actually tried that with the previous generation of sync) -- gives me peace of mind.

[cddotdotslash]

Allow me to speak from the mindset of a consumer. The average consumer doesn't care about Firefox's data storage policies or how much they cooperate with the government. They care that things just work and are fast enough. For me, the convenience of Google Chrome comes from the fact that it is tightly integrated with all of Google services. I can use one Google account to log into my browser, access my email, set up a calendar, etc. Sure, Firefox can do syncing too, I just prefer using one company that does it all rather than two that do half.

Also, unrelated, I think Firefox spent too long copying Google Chrome's interface and now they are playing catch up.

Regardless, Firefox usage continues to decline month after month. I think they've lost the general consumer appeal.

[e12e]

I'd be much more interested in what you think personally, than what "a consumer" might think. I'm perfectly aware that a lot of the things that matter to me, doesn't seem to matter to a lot of people. Do I understand you correctly, in that:

1) You use gmail and Google calendar, therefore

2) You want your passwords, extensions, bookmarks and browser history synced by the same provider that provides your email and calendar hosting

3) You don't care if you can never (reasonably) move away from that provider

For you, Firefox would be as nice as Chrome, if: Firefox provided free/cheap (web)email and calendar hosting in addition to the sync services? Or if a third party offered paid hosting for Firefox sync along with (web+imap+smtp) email and calendar (ical) services? (Sounds like something fastmail should consider..?)

I'm not trying to be snarky, I just genuinely want to know in what way you think Firefox could (should) improve -- it sounds like the only thing missing is more services hosted under a single login?

[snlacks]

Anecdotal evidence: I work in an office with a lot of our companies non-technically inclined folks, and I would say: Yes, that is exactly how they feel. They want one password, and they want all their bookmarks and customization exactly as they are on every other computer they log in on without giving the computer or the software running on it any thought.

For work especially, calendar, email, hangouts, docs/drive... it saves us from needing more IT or training.

Edit: added "Anecdotal evidence:" to show awareness that I do not represent all cases. Also removed snark.

[cddotdotslash]

Well personally, I am probably not the average HN reader in that I have little problems giving up personal information in exchange for access to new services, free services, etc. So in that regard, Google more or less fits my mindset. As far as improving, I don't know - Firefox is already an excellent browser that is fast, secure, and pretty standard-compliant. It definitely beats IE.

What I've been trying to communicate is that I think the general consumer tends to be drawn to tightly integrated services - one provider can handle their email, their calendar, their browser, their phone's OS, etc. While this raises issues within the HN-crowd, my anecdotal evidence* supports the fact that the average user has little knowledge or desire for efforts to "protect their privacy." In general, they trust Google and don't have a need to switch. I've yet to convince anyone to switch from Chrome to Firefox over privacy arguments, but I have managed to get almost everyone I know to switch from IE to Chrome simply by telling them "it's Google."

* Family, friends, and family's co-workers

[e12e]

I certainly appreciate the convenience of having one (service) provider. Not very important to me (I'm aware of the trade-offs involved) -- but that doesn't mean I'm blind to how most people feel. Funny that the only thing that's not (AFAIK) part of Mozilla yet, is cloud storage. With more Firefox apps, it's not inconceivable that there'll be a viable docs-alternative -- and as for phone os, there is of course Firefox OS...